Public walk to open new Bay Bridge span

CITY INSIDER

Updated 10:40 am, Monday, February 11, 2013

A pedestrian and bike lane stretches along the Bay Bridge's new eastern span.

A pedestrian and bike lane stretches along the Bay Bridge's new eastern span.

Photo: Noah Berger, Special To The Chronicle

Public walk to open new Bay Bridge span

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

The new Bay Bridge's big bash in September won't be the first chance for the general public to set foot on the Bay Area's busiest bridge, as transportation officials had suggested, after all.

We were aware that a series of footraces were held across the bridge in the late 1980s and early 1990s since we participated in one of the runs, but those, of course, required an entry fee, a commitment to run (or at least walk fast) and were limited to a certain number of people.

However, to our surprise, and that of a collection of Bay Area transportation officials we queried, the public was allowed to walk onto the Bay Bridge on Nov. 17, 1989, the day before the just-repaired bridge was reopened to vehicles after the Loma Prieta earthquake caused a 250-ton section of it to collapse. News accounts said that about 13,000 people participated.

This time, participants will be required to sign up in advance to walk across the new east span as well as the west span at a specific time, said John Goodwin, a spokesman for the Bay Area Toll Authority, which is working with a private nonprofit to coordinate a bridge celebration. About 15,000 people an hour - and a total of 125,000 - will be allowed to stroll across the span from east to west. They'll have to find their own way home from San Francisco, probably via BART or a transbay bus.

The scheduling, and the limit, will contain the cost - the toll authority is proposing to spend $5.6 million for transportation, crowd control and to provide public amenities like portable toilets and drinking water. It will also prevent the fiasco that occurred in 1987 when the Golden Gate Bridge celebrated its 50th anniversary with a bridge walk that drew 800,000 people. About 300,000 crowded onto the bridge, causing it to flatten.

"We want to avoid 1987," Goodwin said.

Bridge walkers will catch buses at a big transit hub in downtown Oakland between the two downtown BART stations or two smaller centers outside the West Oakland and Lake Merritt stations.

A private group, the Bay Bridge Alliance, also hopes to have 10-kilometer and half-marathon runs, a bike ride, fireworks and possibly a concert on Treasure Island. They're hoping to raise $4 million to $5 million to cover the costs.

Edged out: To the anonymous "large, well-respected and highly capitalized development entity" anxious to leapfrog the Giants and build on the port-owned parking lot across from AT&T Park: Nice try.

That's the gist of a 12-page memo from the city attorney's office to port Executive Director Monique Moyer, responding to one of the odder legal challenges the city has faced.

Since 2006, port officials have been looking for someone to develop Seawall Lot 337, which is port-speak for the bleak and wind-swept chunk of concrete that makes up the parking lot across McCovey Cove from the stadium. In 2009, a team led by the Giants was selected as the developer and last April the team presented a plan for a $1.6 billion mixed-use Mission Rock development that would include parks, shops, office space and about 1,000 apartments. Port officials and the team have been working out the details of the agreement ever since.

But in December, port officials received a letter from a big-name law firm of Manatt, Phelps, Phillips, representing the unnamed "development entity," arguing that because the Giants' development partner had dropped out, the city was required to dump the Giants as the developer and start all over again.

A new auction of the development rights would allow new - also unnamed - builders to get involved and bring more money to the port, the attorneys said. Not requiring a new "request for proposals" would "reek of backdoor dealings and impropriety."

There was, however, no explanation as to why the unnamed developer decided to get involved now, when the San Francisco development market is hot, rather than in 2008, when no one wanted to build anything in the city. A Manatt attorney did say, however, that their client was staying anonymous because of concerns that the challenge could be held against them if the bidding was reopened.

The legal problem with the challenge, though, is that no law requires the city to seek new development proposals, city attorneys found, since as a charter city San Francisco sets its own rules on competitive bidding. The original agreement with the Giants also dealt with the potential withdrawal of development partners, and port officials properly handled the changes.

"Manatt's client faces a high hurdle should it attempt to seek relief from the courts," the attorneys said in their memo.

That doesn't mean there won't be a lawsuit sometime in the future, but it does allow the port to continue working out the final details of the development agreement with the Giants.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.